The debate "Debates with religious people are pointless because you cannot change their views" was started by
February 11, 2016, 10:31 am.
16 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 13 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
danielle posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
jfischthecat posted 1 argument, PsychDave posted 1 argument, Alex posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
danielle, ProudAmerican888, WaspToxin, historybuff, Kopano_98, progressive, RyanWakefield, barman and 8 visitors agree.
jfischthecat, PsychDave, Alex, sloanstar1000, ReadyToBegin, syabab01 and 7 visitors disagree.
again alex, please read what we say. he said that science DOES use evidence because it is based on testable predictions. Religion does not use evidence because it is based in the super natural. please try to pay attention if you are going to attempt to criticize.
you say that god has shown that he is truth. how? where is the evidence that he is truth? you say he has given proof. please be so kind as to show us this indisputable evidence.
you say you will only change your views things if presented with 100% proof. but you are willing to accept religion with no evidence what so ever. do you see the hypocrisy of that?
you say science does not need to be constrained by logic or reason all the time.
another example of the same arguments religion and science use.
I'm not changing my religious beliefs because God is Truth, he has revealed he is truth, and he has shown proof he is true.
I'm not changing my beliefs on God, just as I'm not changing my belief that 2+2=4. both are Truth.
I will change my belief on science things, if I am convinced they are truth. like evolution or the big bang, you can convince me of those things being truth if you can prove it 100%.
The frustration I have consistently had in debating religion us that God is not constrained by logic or reason, so religious arguments don't need to be either. If an atheist argues that evolution is true, or that the universe was created by the big bang, or that the earth orbits the sun they must back it with proof and evidence to support such a position. Religion by definition relies on the supernatural, so they can state that something happened that is counter to scientific or logical evidence and explanation. Since the opposing views do not have to abide by the same rules, debates are rarely conclusive or effective.
That said, I do not believe that they are pointless. In debating religious people I come to a greater understanding of their beliefs and hopefully they come to a better understanding of mine. It also sheds light on the subject for those who are reading the arguments which could help them decide one way or the other based on the arguments made. If just one person makes an informed decision about their beliefs, whether for or against religion, the debate was not pointless.
Debates are never pointless. but I'm sure a religious person finds it just as difficult to argue with a person who sides with science.
yeah I agree, this wasnt something I necessarily agreed with, just something someone said to me
I wouldn't say so. Debating someone will either force people to think about their views and research them, or to complain about their own opinion without any effort on their part. This topic either assumes religious people are blinded by faith, or that converting either way is impossible. It is more likely the former, and this statement would only be made if you thought that you were right. Naturally, any person in any position they are in thinks that they are either right, or lesser of two evils. To apply that to this conversation, it would be "people who think they are right about religion cannot be debated about" so in short it is "you cannot debate about religion", because making a statement on either side's ignorance assumes being correct, thereby closing the assumption by starting at the end. Couldn't I say the same about atheists, as any religious person can believe that either a proof or logic follows their belief? That since an atheist will defy this logic or decides to ignore proof, they cannot be changed? It would be an equivalent statement, but dishonest. Certainly you would ask for proof, which then it would have to be believed that either you saw but did not recognize proof, or there is a fault in logic. Wouldn't an atheist say the same thing?
This doesn't shut religious people down for debate, but calling them blind already says that there is a bias that closes off the speaker.
This isn't a religious debate, but a comment on what the belief a person is unreasonable does.